snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

August 31, 2017

I'm confident that most people in Salem consider illegal signs in the public right of way to be the abomination that they are. Ugly. Irritating. Trashy. Disrespectful of public property.

But after Salem Community Vision -- a group dedicated to improving the livability and vitality of our town -- praised the City Council for making a stronger commitment to remove illegally placed temporary signs, and warned that Kelly's Home Center once again may be visually polluting Salem with lots of illegal signs this Labor Day weekend, some lovers of those signs popped up on Facebook.

Notably, Ashlee Bell Wright, who posted a curious event: "Stop Salem Community Vision from Targeting Small Businesses." Here's the gist of what Wright is bothered about. She said:

They [Salem Community Vision] have shown up to every city council meeting to voice their complaints, mind you, there are only THREE Salem citizens on this board, and they're trying to represent the community's majority opinion. They're trying to get the city to start enforcing a stricter sign code: every quarter, city workers will canvas the city and force ANY small business found in "violation" can be ticketed and their signs will be confiscated. They've started to target Kelly's Furniture store, local downtown food businesses who use sand which boards, and medical marijuana sites.

This affects all of us. Our local small businesses need to put signs out to get their business. Many small businesses are not known by tourists, have just opened and are trying to gather regular customers, or are simply trying to promote business. In addition, our tax dollars will be put to fruitless use. Would you rather this money go to pay for new infrastructure or city parks, or to enforce a sign code violation that will clog up council meetings and enrage a large part of our community. SCV's page has been flooded by our Salem community with voices of disagreement, and a page that preaches about sharing the "vision of our community" has NOT been listening.

Wow. There's so much wrong here. As a member of the Salem Community Vision (SCV) steering committee, let me count some of the ways:

(1) Small thing, but actually four out of six SCV committee members live in Salem. I have a Salem address outside the city limits. Another member lives in Silverton. And about a thousand people have "liked" the SCV Facebook page, so we have many supporters.

Hundreds of signs in the public rights-of-way in Salem are a form of visual pollution that degrades our city and sends a message to visitors and people who might like to relocate here that we don't care about our streetscapes. These illegal signs (along with an overabundance of legal signs allowed by Salem's too-permissive sign ordinances) make streets like Lancaster, Liberty, Commercial and Market Street look tacky and trashy. Since these are major arterials, these streets leave a terrible impression that scenic parts of our city, like our historic downtown or the Capitol Mall area, cannot erase.

(3) The fact that Salem has an longstanding ordinance that bans temporary signs in the public right of way is a pretty good, um, sign that this reflects a majority citizen view. So does the fact that, as mentioned above, the City Council has recently called on City staff to enforce that ordinance more strongly.

(4) So it isn't Salem Community Vision that is targeting businesses who use public property for a private advertising purpose. Rather, SCV is simply asking the City of Salem to enforce the ordinance that bans temporary signs in the public right-of-way. We're not anti-business. We're anti-illegal signs. Businesses like Kelly's are just a major offender of the sign ordinance.

Here's what I told Wright in a comment on one of her Facebook postings where she said, in part:

Hey y'all, Salem Community vision is back at it again, this time targeting local businesses like Kelly's Furniture Store. Our local business have made our city thrive, and SCV has recently managed to convince the City Council to fine and confiscate businesses that have signs that "violate sign code". This will affect our small businesses, as well as fruitlessly use our tax dollars.

I replied with:

Why do you have "violate sign code" in quotation marks? Kelly's really is violating the Salem sign code. If you don't like what I and others in Salem Community Vision are doing -- getting people to comply with the City of Salem sign ordinance -- you should focus on getting the ordinance changed to allow signs in the public right of way, Good luck with that, by the way, because this would be very unpopular among both citizens and a clear majority of the City Council.

Wright is asking people to come to the September 11 City Council meeting and urge that illegal signs in the public right of way be allowed to stay up.

Like I said, good luck with that.

I'm confident that most Salemians don't want our town to become Trashy Sign City USA. As Kathleen Hill cogently testified at a recent City Council meeting, these days there are many better ways for businesses to advertise and make their existence known to prospective customers.

Such as, Facebook and other social media. Providing excellent services at a reasonable cost. Word of mouth spread by satisfied customers. Have a look and listen.

Lastly, I wonder what other undesirable activities currently banned by a city ordinance might attract boosters. Here's one that comes to mind.

"Stop the City of Salem from targeting litterbugs! Everybody has a right to dispose of trash wherever they want, like the sidewalk!"

August 15, 2017

There was a lot of discussion about illegal temporary signs in the public right-of-way at last night's City Council meeting. Here's some great testimony by Kathleen Hill on changes to the City of Salem sign ordinance that go in the wrong direction when it comes to illegal signs.

As Hill said, signs left on utility poles or stuck in the ground on the public right of way between sidewalk and street are indeed trash. And they make Salem look trashy, unappealing to visitors and people thinking of moving here.

Councilor Cara Kaser picked up on Hill's comment, wondering why, if it would be legal to throw away a Big Gulp container left in the public right of way, it isn't OK to throw away an illegal sign left in the right of way.

City Attorney Dan Atchison responded to Kaser, saying that state law treats these signs as abandoned property, so if an illegal sign is removed, some effort must be made to find the owner.

This seems ridiculous to me.

But laws often don't make sense, so I'll bow to the City Attorney's legal knowledge (even though I've happily thrown away some illegal signs placed on utility poles and felt good doing so). City staff have said that it is perfectly fine to take down illegal signs and lay them on the ground, so everybody in Salem who dislikes illegal signs should do this when you come across one.

City staff admitted that no fines are being levied against individuals and businesses who shamelessly litter Salem with their illegal signs. Amazingly, supposedly someone placing an illegal sign has to be caught in the act -- even though it sure seems like a Kelly's sign advertising a sale is a pretty damn good clue as to who put it in the public right of way.

Fortunately, action on the proposed revisions to the sign ordinance was put off for two weeks, until the August 28 City Council meeting. Between now and then, city councilors who are concerned about the lack of enforcement against illegal temporary signs will be able to consult with staff on ways to deal with the problem.

I didn't attend last night's City Council meeting, watching parts of it being streamed on CCTV. I did watch most of the sign ordinance discussion. It was encouraging that quite a few people, some representing neighborhood associations, testified about how something needs to be done about temporary illegal signs.

Googling this issue, I learned a few things about how some other Oregon cities handle the problem. Sherwood only allows signs in the public right of way during weekend hours.

Between 6:00 AM on Friday to 6:00 PM on Sunday, ONLY portable signs 18 inches X 24 inches or smaller or A-Frame signs no taller than 4 feet and no greater than 7 square feet are permitted in the right of way.

This seems like a good idea. Someone having a garage sale, for example, can put out a sign from Friday evening to Sunday evening. Any signs in the public right of way at other times are illegal.

Can I remove signs at intersection or on utility poles?Yes a resident can remove stake signs from the major intersections and signs attached to poles and street signs. Removed signs can be placed face down in the nearby landscaping and will be picked up during regular maintenance.

Clearly the City of Salem should be doing a lot more to enforce its ban on temporary signs in the public right of way. I recall that City staff said that their not-good-enough idea is to have city employees run around quarterly in a pickup, collecting illegal signs.

Well, this is better than nothing, but not much better.

There needs to be a continuous ongoing effort to remove illegal signs. This shouldn't rely solely on volunteers. Individuals and businesses who leave sign trash in the right of way need to know that almost as soon as a sign is put up, it will be taken down. Fines also need to be imposed on repeat lawbreakers such as Kelly's.

Hopefully the City Council will come up with ways to strengthen the current ban on temporary signs in the public right of way, which isn't being enforced.

The public outcry against these signs at last night's meeting was a pleasing sign (and a legal one) that people in Salem are mad as hell about the proliferation of illegal signs and don't want to take it anymore.

August 13, 2017

With all the problems in our country (and the world) right now, I understand why some people feel it is wrong to get upset about the many illegal signs littering the public right of way in Salem.

OK, I understand. But I heartily disagree that this isn't important. It is!

Salem's quality of life -- along with our ability to project a positive image to visitors and people/businesses who might want to move here -- is diminished when illegal signs proliferate along our streets, making this town look like a perpetual garage sale.

The current City of Salem sign ordinance requires that someone wanting to put a temporary sign in the public right of way get approval from City officials if the sign is within the city limits.

But revisions to the sign ordinance up for review at tomorrow's City Council meeting do away with the need for this approval, since the proposed revised ordinance eliminates SRC 900.100. The prohibition on temporary signs in the public right of way remains, though.

Well, this doesn't seem like progress.

As several neighborhood associations and individuals concerned about illegal signs noted in comments on the revised ordinance, doing away with the need to get approval for temporary signs in the public right of way sends the message, "Hey, go ahead and place your illegal signs. No permit required now!"

Here's some of the comments:

Northeast Neighbors neighborhood association

...

Evan White

South Central Association of Neighbors

Thus rather than enforcing the prohibition of signs in the public right of way, the City of Salem wants to make it easier to place these signs by doing away with the current requirement to get approval for such signs. Apparently the rationale is that few people are doing the right thing and requesting approval, so why not allow anyone to easily put up illegal signs?

I can think of several reasons.

(1) Requiring approval for temporary signs opens the door to charging a fee for such a permit. Why should Kelly's and other businesses be allowed to use the public right of way for free advertising? If Kelly's wants to put up dozens of signs advertising a sale, then Kelly's should have to pay for this privilege.

(2) Having a fee schedule for permits to place temporary signs in the right of way would generate income that could be used to pay for a Code Enforcement person to manage the proliferation of such signs. Currently the City of Salem says it doesn't have the money to fund this position. Yet the City isn't taking any steps to generate fees from temporary sign permits -- and now is going further backwards by doing away with the requirement to get approval to put temporary signs in the public right of way,

(3) Eliminating the possibility of getting approval for a temporary sign in the public right of way via the current 900.100 means that there is no way -- none, nada, zilch -- any such sign should be in the public right of way at any time. But there is no indication that the City of Salem intends to enforce this absolute prohibition should the revised sign ordinance be approved.

Meaning, it would be one thing if the City of Salem was eliminating the possibility of getting approval for signs in the public right of way because it intends to crack down hard on sign scofflaws. However, if this is the case, City officials need to make that explicit at tomorrow's City Council meeting, explaining how they are now going to enforce an ordinance that prohibits signs in the public right of way -- now without any way to get approval to go around this prohibition.

The staff report on the proposed sign ordinance changes is confusing in this regard. It says that most illegal signs in the public right of way don't require a permit.

I don't understand this.

Both the current and proposed sign ordinances say "no temporary sign should be installed in or project over public right of way." There is no exemption for certain types of signs, such of those mentioned above (lawn signs, rigid signs, A-Frame signs). So along with the neighborhood associations, I'm perplexed by the staff report's contention that those sorts of temporary signs don't require approval under the current sign ordinance.

It sure looks like the intent of the proposed change is to make it easier for people and businesses to place temporary signs in the public right of way without having to worry about getting a permit or paying a fine. Like I said, this would be a big step backward for Salem -- which should be working to eliminate the plethora of illegal signs rather than encouraging them.

I'll end by noting that when I visit a town that doesn't allow temporary signs in the public right of way, I'm always impressed by what a difference this makes.

For example, my wife and I frequently visit Sisters, Oregon. The town has strict zoning/appearance rules, obviously, because the commercial area looks classy, tasteful, attractive, and temporary sign-free. Ditto with where my daughter lives, Laguna Niguel, California.

Somehow both towns get along fine without temporary signs in the public right of way. In fact, both towns appear to be prospering without them.

Our City officials need to grasp that both quality of life and economic development flow from making a town a desirable place to live and work in. It is short-sighted to believe that allowing tacky visual sign pollution is a good thing for Salem.

April 06, 2016

In a previous post I criticized the proliferation of illegally-placed political yard signs around Salem by candidates who would go nameless if I hadn't named them as Chuck Bennett (running for Mayor) and Warren Bednarz (running for City Council).

I now turn my attention from legalities to artistic impressions, following in the footsteps, or, rather, tire treads, of local blogger The Upright Cyclist.

His 2014 "The Hidden Meanings in Campaign Signs" delved into "deep-seated archetypes from the land of Ur" which I am incapable of philosophically analyzing so cogently and entertainingly.

So here's my artistic critique of some signs being used in current campaigning for the May 2016 election. (I tried to use images from the candidates' web sites, but couldn't find any for Bennett and Bednarz.)

Mayor candidate Carole Smith should gain the vote of purple lovers! Her yard sign has a feminine vibe, which befits her chromosomal status as a woman.

The green leaf (or possibly an elevated view or a mutated mouse) adds a pleasing quizzical note. What does this mean? Will she green-up Salem? Wear a wreath when she presides at City Council meetings? Or, and maybe this is just my own fantasy talking, hand out free cannabis?

By contrast, Chuck Bennett's Mayoral yard sign screams Traditional! I do give Bennett credit for resisting the urge to make his sign red, white, and blue. Bold move to eschew the red.

The typographic quality of the sign doesn't do much for me (neither does Bennett's candidacy, but that's another question). The mix of fonts and sizes is jarring. And why is the "elect" so small? From a distance the sign could simply be taken as a message that Bennett is Mayor.

In the Ward 7 City Council race, we have a similar feminine/masculine artistic divide. Newcomer Sally Cook also uses vegetation on her sign. She spearheaded getting a community garden going in her neighborhood, so this is a nice reflection of that.

Kudos for the "fresh start," which brings up thoughts of both plant and political "starts" blossoming under bright rays. Nice graphic design. Sign gives off a good positive feeling.

Warren Bednarz, the current occupant of the Ward 7 City Council seat, goes the red, white, and blue "blocky" design route. Interestingly, he doesn't mention what ward he represents, nor does he say "vote" or "elect."

I guess the sign is mainly about getting his name out there. It works for that. Putting "Warren" in a quasi-cursive font helps soften the blockiness somewhat. But overall I'm left with a very traditional vibe, much like Bennett's sign. (They're more conservative than their opponents, so this makes sense.)

In Ward 1, Cara Kaser is running for the City Council seat being vacated by Chuck Bennett. Her "Rosie the Riveter" image harkens back to World War II, a proto-feminist time for working women.

The sign appeals to me, in part because the lettering eschews red, white, or blue. It tells us that Cara Kaser will work for you -- the "you" presumably being everybody who sees the sign. This brings the observer and observed into an intimate existential connection.

(Damn, I CAN do some philosophical analyzing!)

Kaser's Ward 1 opponent, Jan Kailuweit, made a creative use of photo editing to have the Golden Man on top of the state capitol endorse his candidacy. Below is a close-up of the image I found on his Facebook page.

Artistically, the three candidates endorsed by the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce -- Chuck Bennett, Warren Bedarz, and Jan Kailiuweit all have similar-looking signs. White and blue, or red, white, and blue.

Kailuweit's sign doesn't do a whole lot for me. He doesn't mention Ward 1. He doesn't say "elect" or "vote," just "for."

Since many people in Salem, particularly those of a liberal/progressive persuasion, view a Chamber of Commerce endorsement as an indication that a candidate is beholden to special interests, I think Kailuweit would have been better off with a more creative sign like Cara Kaser's.

But hopefully, citizens will be choosing who to vote for on criteria other than who has the cutest sign.

April 03, 2016

Ah, Spring. The natural blooms are beautiful. But not the political "yard" signs that are blossoming all around Salem in the public right of way -- where they're prohibited by City ordinance 900.100:

900.100. Signs Installed Over or Within the Right-of-Way. No sign shall be erected over or within the public right-of-way unless the placement of the sign is first approved by the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the right-of-way. (Ord No. 4-12) [note: to my knowledge, approvals never are asked for, nor given]

There's a reason they call them "yard signs." They are supposed to go in yards. Citizens who support a given candidate can show that support to their neighbors by agreeing to have a sign placed in their yard (like Sally Cook's signs below). Unfortunately this time of year there are candidates for local office who must not have many supporters, so they have to resort in planting their signs illegally in the public right of way. Yes, it is illegal. It violates Salem Revised Code 900.100. Can you believe it? We have politicians running for City positions who are willfully violating the City code to get elected. Do like me and never vote for a candidate who breaks the law.

I found this Sally Cook sign photo on her Facebook page. It's clearer than the one Scheppke shared. Yes, this is a political sign in a yard. So it truly is a Yard Sign.

For some reason City Councilor Chuck Bennett (who is running for Mayor against Carole Smith), and City Councilor Warren Bednarz (who is running for re-election against Sally Cook) don't understand the City sign ordinance very well.

By and large, the public right of way includes the space between a sidewalk and a street, along with the space between utility poles and a street. "Public" means it is for the use of everybody, not a favored few.

These brazen Warren Bednarz signs absolutely scream I'm illegal.

Unable to pound one of his signs right into the sidewalk -- which I'm sure Bednarz would prefer -- a sign was placed in a tree cutout. (The tree leans to the right, just like Bednarz, so at least they're compatible in that regard.)

The other sign sure isn't in any sort of private yard either. Unless the Bednarz campaign got permission from gophers who live there to put a sign on their rodent property.

Opinions differ on what citizens can do when they come across an illegal sign in the public right of way.

Pulling the sign out and laying it flat on the ground is almost certainly fine. In fact, I encourage this, having done it myself on several occasions.

Since the signs are akin to littering in a public place, it can be argued that disposing of an illegal sign is the right thing to do. But I've heard that City staff advise the "pull and lay flat" approach.

It is City Council campaign season once again in our neighborhood, and the signs for candidates are sprouting like dandelions. Neighbors about whom one usually knows only what their glass recycling bin reveals suddenly share their political and social views with comparative abandon. Amongst a pretty tight-lipped lot, it is a period of unusual openness.

But, what do these signs really tell us?

I think political signs often send unintended messages, and it is those messages I most enjoy. Whether there is any factual basis to the insights below is utterly irrelevant: indeed, in this utterly irrelevant post I rather hope my comments have nothing to do at all with what was intended. Instead, I am trying to draw out deep-seated archetypes from the land of Ur that no-one wanted or thought of. That way, I can get some enjoyment out of all this politicking, as well.